The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-07-17

The conditions Of entering were that
the applicant should support herself
and have written certificate Of good
character from two responsible per-
sons. When these we're satisfied she
found herself in room or two rooms
of comfortable size, comfortably fur
nished.
There were 100 servants required.
II cost $1,000 day to run the house.
This sum, il the house vereI filed
with boarders, the rentals would
yield. The hotel would be self sap
porting. .Allprohts we're waived.
SHORT LIVED EXPERIMENT.
The house remained open until
May 18th, little more than month.
1t never, at any time, contained over
Fifty boarders. 1t certainly must be
considered noteworthy fact that in
city where self supporting women
abound that the offer Of luxury at 81
week should have beee so com
pletely ignored.
The various explanations of il
given at the time do not seem TO be
adequate. The published rules we're
in great measure those observed in
any hotel. There, however, they are
unwritten; here they were expressed
with unpleasant plainness. 1t should
also be remembered that, while the
casual boarder may submit TO certain
restrictions for short time, these
would become intolerable as part Of
the daily routine. But the most OBJ
jectionable rules we're these;
No eew ny machine nor any work
ink apps atu- rny extra iufni,ure
will b, a, oweh IN he rooms.
Mai oust n"' be driven into the
" ls OF woodwork Of the TO
Wi ora Will not be allow d Ia the
other Ionma or parlors Of he hot.l
(otLet than the eisht re PHI n roo ns)
.xcep, oy tho permu sion Of the man
ayr.
No dogs, cats or pct animals OF any
kind ~ill bs allowed in the hotel.
IL is the last two ruies that osca-
stoned the greatest amount OF public
d scussion, and appeared TO argue the
unreasonableness Of women who, Tor
their own protection and paltry cen
siderations, would forego great and
positive benefits.
Fancy q thousand canaries sing
ing and q thousand cats newingl"
was the amusing, if illogical, answer
to their whims.
OFFENSIVE RULES orFINsIvELr
EXPRESSED.
The objection TO visitors was more
widely aud disagreeably discussed.
That discrimination in regard TO sex
was slight was not dwelt upon. But
il appears to be a fact that sisters
and mothers without a permit from
the manager were alike barred be-
yond the reception rooms. Such
restriction was more odious aud
caused more friction than theI regu-
lation concerning men. As for this,
the offensive manner In which IL was
stated and the inisrenscs 10 be
drawn were the real grounds Of OBJ
lection.
But both Of these rules and the
objections TO them were frivolous
compared to the srst two stated.
These we're practically prshibitive.
There is no need 10 20 further TO dis.
cover why only fifty boarders entered
the Woman's Hotel, and Why zoo
applicants, after having their ere.
dentials passed, refused 10 be wooed
within the doors. Womea who work
must have their tools, whether these
be sewing machines, writing desks,
pianos or easels. None OF these
we're admitted into the private rooms
Of the Woman's Hotel. The private
rooms, deprived Of the implements
Of work, barren Of all the tender lit
tie associations that women love TO
gather about them, vslueless TO
everyone else, priceless TO them, we're
rooms for sleeping, not living.
This was fatal error. What
women Of busy lives really require il
not luxurious saloons aud we'll APP
pointed Libraries or reading rooms
held in common, but homolike seclu-
sion within their own four walls.
Such was the history OF the
Woman's hotel aud its failure.
What women really do want and
how quickly they avail themselves OF
il when il has been provided has
been shswn 10 the past year.